ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

MAY 19, 2008

A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, May 19, 2008 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Vice Chairman R. Scott Hozempa called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.

PRESENT: R. Scott Hozempa, Vice Chairman

Mary Ann Turner

John Rinaldi

Maurice LaRosa, Alternate

ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner

Vice Chairman Hozempa informed the audience that four affirmative votes are required in order for a variance to be approved. He offered tonight’s applicants the option to postpone their application until next month. Both applicants decided to go forward.

Vice Chairman Hozempa noted that Maurice LaRosa will be voting as a regular member tonight.

MINUTES

Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the Minutes of April 28, 2008. The Minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.

CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. Alsbaugh stated Correspondence includes the approval letter for the Ruggieri’s and updated articles from the By-Laws and an updated page.

Vice Chairman Hozempa informed the audience when a variance can be granted.

ZBA 20080-05-01 – Robert and Ann Marie Coppinger, Applicants and Owners, 22 Copper Drive, Map 53/Lot 437, R-33 Zone, requesting a side yard setback variance of 4.7 feet, 10 feet required, 29.3 feet existing, 5.3 feet proposed to construct an attached two-car garage – EZO Section 4.10.2H

Craig Winchester, a neighbor of the Coppinger’s, appeared before the Board on their behalf. Mr. Winchester gave some history of the applicants for the Board’s information. He noted that Mr. Coppinger is retired and receives a disability for a back problem. Mrs. Coppinger has had three disc surgeries and walks with a cane. Aside from the obvious reasons of snow and ice and getting in and out of the house, the long range considerations are looking at what is going to happen down the road if they get the garage and the hardship imposed with both of their current conditions. When they start talking about ramps, it gets kind of messy trying to squeeze it into a one-car garage. Mr. Winchester noted the incline ratios for ramps now are twenty to one. They are probably looking at about a two and a half foot drop to extend the current stairs. Mr. Winchester elaborated on the condition of the applicants and their concerns about the future. Mr. Winchester did some calculations and stated a two foot rise would calculate out to a 40’ ramp encompassing 140 square feet. He is using about three and a half feet of clear space on the ramp.

Vice Chairman Hozempa asked where this ramp would be built.

Mr. Winchester stated the ramp would be built probably coming off the back side which is where the entrance is and they would have to come off this entrance and probably go across and then maybe back around or across and down.

Vice Chairman Hozempa asked if they are planning this ramp right through the middle of the garage. Mr. Hozempa explained the drawing for the benefit of the Board members.

Mr. Winchester stated they would probably come off one direction to some type of platform and go back across the back wall and if there is not enough rise, maybe another platform would come back. This would be inside the garage.

Ms. Turner stated the application is for a garage and not a ramp. It is a 26’ garage and if they try to install a wrap around, they will run out of room and there will not be enough depth for the car. Mr. Winchester stated there should be an adequate amount of depth for the cars. Ms. Turner questioned if the applicant wants a bigger garage. Mr. Winchester is expressing the applicants’ position on what they are going to need down the road.

Vice Chairman Hozempa would like to hear about the proposed garage.

Mr. Winchester stated the proposed garage is 24’ x 26’ deep. They had the property surveyed. What they are proposing is a variance of 4.7 feet. They have 19.3’ now and that would give them a 24 foot garage and leave five feet between the foundation and the existing lot line. They have a neighbor next door that did something like this about a year ago. When they looked at the square footage and coverage of this situation, including the garage because there is a deck on the back of the house and a storage building, it would come to 19.65% coverage. This includes a 24’ x 26’ garage. Mr. Winchester stated the applicants have two cars and they would like to get both cars in. He admitted that 19’ is very tight. Mr. Winchester stated Mrs. Coppinger’s situation with a cane becomes a problem and he elaborated on this.

Mr. Rinaldi asked how far do the existing stairs come out right now for the garage. Mr. Winchester estimated four and a half feet.

Ms. Turner stated the plan is to remove the stairs and reconfigure something. Mr. Winchester stated there is one rise coming off the rear exit door. They haven’t drawn up any plans yet but the way he sees it a future ramp would come off the entrance and go to the back of the property and across the back side wall. There may have to be turning ramps in there. There has to be at least three feet unobstructed on the walkways.

Mr. LaRosa asked why it is not meeting the front of the house. Mr. Winchester stated you could move it back so that they get a couple of feet. Mr. LaRosa stated he is not sure there is enough room for what they want to do in the future. But they are talking about putting in ramps in the next few years and they will be back for another variance. Mr. LaRosa suggested the ramps are something they might want to think about now before they go ahead with construction and have to rebuild afterwards.

Mr. Winchester stated he is unsure what they will do if they stay within the 10’ setback. That is a decision they would have to make. Do they want to build a one-car garage? The two-car garage for them presents a couple of choices that they need to make. Do they go with the double doors? The recommendation might be to go with two single doors.

Mr. LaRosa is concerned with the depth of the garage. If they are putting in a two-tier ramp, they may be back in two years to extend that garage back another four or five feet because they will run out of room to even put a car in the garage.

Mr. Winchester stated if it is 20 to 1 for a ramp, then they are going to need approximately four feet. For it to come off the back of the building , they would need six feet back and twenty-four across.

Ms. Turner asked that Mr. Winchester discuss the two-car garage which is the subject of this variance. They are not here for a ramp.

Mr. LaRosa stated with just the two-car garage, they are still going to take the steps and turn them. Mr. Winchester stated those steps will be removed from the building. Something else will have to be done.

Mr. Rinaldi stated once the variance is granted, it runs with the land. The Board will take under consideration the circumstances but the main reason for the variance is the property. Mr. Rinaldi saw a need for the applicant to convince this Board what is unique about this property and why the garage needs to be at five feet rather than the ten feet.

Mr. Winchester stated when they had the property surveyed, when Starr built these homes, he built them tight on one side of the lot line. This particular property is sitting thirteen feet off the line at the far end of the house and it is tighter to the other side of the property. They would like a garage in the 24’ range to make it work.

Mr. Rinaldi asked when the home was built. Mr. Winchester stated approximately thirty-five years ago.

Mr. LaRosa stated on the left side, that wasn’t as close as he could get to the property line. Mr. Winchester stated that is correct. He is only 10’ 5 inches away from the property line. He did put it tight to one side. You can’t go tighter than the 10’. Mr. Winchester stated he thinks he made a mistake. He’s only got the five inches. Normally you want to give yourself some leeway on those things.

Ms. Turner stated she did go look at the property and it is pretty tight there. The other neighbors all have garages. There are a few that do not. She asked about the neighbor’s reaction.

Mr. Winchester stated the neighbor has no objections whatsoever. The neighbor did a garage about two years ago. Mr. Winchester stated the concern is trying to get fire equipment if needed into the back yard. There is about 20’ on the west side of the house and even with the variance you would have at least fifteen feet on the east side of the house and twenty feet on the west side of the house.

Vice Chairman Hozempa suggested moving the garage to the back of the house. The applicant is proposing to be only 5’3 inches from the property line. If the garage was moved to the back of the house, that would not be the case. Mr. Winchester stated on the back of the house they have a deck. Vice Chairman Hozempa felt they could put the garage in the back and still meet what they are looking for.

Mr. LaRosa stated putting the garage not up to the deck but jogging it just behind the corner of the house would give the necessary 10’. Ms. Turner stated then you would not have to have a ramp. They could get right out on to the deck.

Mr. Winchester stated if they move a door into another location, then they could reconfigure the garage.

Vice Chairman Hozempa stated if the garage is kept the same size but moved to the back of the house, the ten feet on the side would remain. Depending on how you move the driveway in, you would still be able to meet the setback without needing a variance.

Vice Chairman Hozempa stated there is 30’ from the property to the house. The applicant is looking for 4.7’ on the side. If the garage was moved to the back and over, it would meet the regulations. Vice Chairman Hozempa stated if the garage is moved back, it will abut the deck without affecting the property line.

Mr. LaRosa stated if the garage were built in the back, they could build the garage as deep as they wanted as long as they do not go over the coverage. This would also allow the applicants to be able to accommodate their ramps later on.

Ms. Turner stated the applicant is stuck with the house itself and the chimney. You can’t move them. If they go straight in, you can get further down.

Vice Chairman Hozempa asked if the applicants could table their application at this point without it being voted on. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board can do so.

Ms. Turner suggested meeting with the applicants by Mr. Winchester to discuss the alternatives raised tonight.

Mr. LaRosa felt there are a lot of options for these applicants.

Mr. Winchester stated they will have someone draw up something for them and see what is required. The Board’s preference is to stay within the 10’.

Mr. LaRosa stated the Board’s purview is to decide if there is a different way to approach this project staying inside the parameters.

Mr. Winchester stated he will go back to the Coppingers and discuss the options.

Ms. Turner stated if they come back and say this is the way we want to build it, that’s fine. But with this approach of discussing other options, the applicants can consider the ramps.

Mr. LaRosa stated the ramps may be something the applicants want to include while the Board is doing this application.

Mr. Winchester stated he did not encourage the applicants to draw up firm plans at this time. He didn’t want them to spend a lot of money until they saw what the options were.

Ms. Turner stated the applicant now has more information and they can go back and discuss options.

Mr. Winchester stated in the next month the applicants will get some input and maybe present a different scenario.

Mr. LaRosa made a motion to table the side yard setback variance for 22 Copper Drive, ZBA 2008-05-01. Ms. Turner seconded the motion and it was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.

Mr. Alsbaugh reminded Board members to hold on to their paperwork for next month.

ZBA 2008-05-02 – Keith and Barbara Stanfield, Applicants and Owners, 5 Leon Street, Map 34/Lot 93, R-33 zone, requesting a rear yard setback variance of 11 feet, 35 feet required, 27 feet existing, 24 feet proposed and a coverage variance of 3.07%, 20% allowed, 18.85 existing, 23.07% proposed, to construct multiple decks – EZO Section 4.10.2H.

Keith Stanfield, 5 Leon Street, and Barbara Stanfield, 5 Leon Street, appeared before the Board regarding this application. Mr. Alsbaugh noted there is a misspelling of their names on the application and it will be corrected with a retyping of the variance.

Mr. Stanfield stated he presently has a twelve by twelve foot deck and he and his wife would like to build a bigger deck. They have a raised ranch and would also like to build a lower deck with the higher deck coming down on to the lower deck. The back yard property slopes down so use of the back yard the way it is for entertaining is not a good way to use it. Mr. Stanfield would like the larger deck to accommodate entertaining.

Mr. Rinaldi stated the existing deck is coming off the main floor. Mr. Stanfield confirmed that to be correct. Mr. Rinaldi noted that the existing deck is presently nonconforming. Mr. Stanfield stated it is 27’ from the back line. The deck was on the property when he purchased it four years ago. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it would be a legal nonconforming use.

Ms. Turner asked how many feet it is from the back of the house to the fence. Also, was the shed there when they purchased the property. Mr. Stanfield stated the shed was there.

Mr. LaRosa asked if the shed becomes a legal nonconforming use. Mr. Alsbaugh stated by statute if the town does not have an enforcement action in court within three years, then it is a legal nonconforming use.

Mr. LaRosa asked if the applicant has looked at other ways of putting this deck in to make it so that it is conforming. You are allowed a 12 x 12’ deck but if they wanted to remove that twelve foot deck, they could still put up another twelve foot deck. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it would have to be the same footprint. Ms. Turner asked if they could put up a 12’ deck and go 24’ long. Mr. Alsbaugh stated that would require a variance since it is an expansion of a nonconforming use.

Mr. LaRosa asked if they have looked at other options without going closer to the fence. Mr. Stanfield stated he has to get a variance either way.

Ms. Turner stated a 12’ x 24’ deck would give them sufficient room on one level. That 10’ shed looks like it is not that close but once you consider adding more deck towards it, it will be hard to mow because there is nothing left.

Mr. Stanfield stated the plans do not show the shed.

Ms. Turner asked if the stairs are where they are now. Mr. Stanfield stated those stairs will be removed.

Ms. Turner asked about the size of the deck. Mr. Stanfield stated the deck will go out 16’ and along the house it’s going to come over 15’ and then it is going to go out 8’ and then there is going to be another 8’. At the end of the 8’ jog is where the stairs are going to come down to the lower deck. Ms. Turner asked why can’t he keep the deck going across the doorway without having the jog. Mr. Stanfield stated the header is up against the house and down a couple of inches for the door.

Mr. Rinaldi asked what kind of door it is. Mr. Stanfield stated it is a regular walk out door.

Ms. Turner stated she doesn’t have an issue with the deck going 12’ out and 24’ the other way. She does have an issue with them wanting to add deeper. You are really almost getting to the point where you are going to be peering over your neighbor’s fence. There isn’t much yard there. Mr. Stanfield stated they bought the house four years ago and they love the house but if they get a couple of couples on their deck, it is too small. The issue he has is he can only go three more feet because he didn’t want to interfere with the lower walk-out door. Ms. Turner stated further that way is too far.

Mr. LaRosa stated the applicant is only going to be left with a 13’ lawn. Mr. Stanfield stated it is less he will have to mow. Mr. LaRosa stated the variance is issued to the property and he is having an issue with the 13’ lawn.

Ms. Turner asked why they just didn’t take the deck to the end of the house. Mr. Stanfield stated his neighbor has a lower deck and he wanted to stay aesthetic with everyone in the neighborhood. He didn’t want a giant deck that would look out of place. The lower deck is only from the door and it goes out 20’. There is 10’ to 15’ from there to the end of the house. Ms. Turner stated it didn’t seem like that much.

Ms. Turner asked if Mr. Stanfield would consider just bringing it out the length of the whole house. She noted the lot is nonconforming and there is not much room back there. Why not put the wood all the way to the end of the house.

Mr. Stanfield stated they were thinking of building a walkway around the house to the deck with pavers. Ms. Turner stated she still has an issue with the 16’ deep but she is open minded to a longer deck.

Mr. LaRosa stated his concern is the lawn. Also, the lawn won’t grow under the deck.

Mr. LaRosa asked if the applicant could live with a 12’ deck if he made it longer. He is trying to preserve as much of the back yard as possible.

Mr. Rinaldi asked if the applicant is having problems with the 12’. Mr. Stanfield stated they have not used the deck in the last couple of years.

Ms. Turner stated the door hinders things because you can’t build in front of the door.

Mr. LaRosa stated he is not sure about taking up that much of the back yard to accomplish this deck.

Some discussion followed about changing the proposed distances to give other options for the decks.

Mr. Stanfield submitted a copy of his plan. Mr. Alsbaugh asked if it is 15’ as shown on the plan or is it 16’. Mr. Stanfield stated it is 16’ one way by 15’ the other way. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the upper deck was 15’ from west to east and then 24’ from north to south. That is what the advertisement is based upon.

Mr. LaRosa stated he noticed that the map didn’t add up. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the map added up with the numbers he was given. With 16’ it is now a foot off. The advertisement was for 15’. Coverage would not become an issue and you would just cite the new dimension. Anything that is changed would be included in the revision section of the proposed motion sheet.

Ms. Turner asked if the neighbors are all in agreement with the proposed decks. Mr. Stanfield stated they are.

Mr. LaRosa asked what is the hardship. Mr. Stanfield stated they have not used their present deck for a couple of years. Mr. Hozempa stated he comes up with 22% coverage in his calculations using the 16’.

Ms. Turner would like the deck to remain 12’ long.

Mr. Alsbaugh discussed procedure should the Board wish to make changes. Questions from the Board followed.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the plans should be modified to reflect the actual numbers being requested. When the proposed motion is made, the Board goes into discussion and makes their amendments. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board also has the option of proposing a new motion as his motion is only a proposed motion.

Vice Chairman Hozempa opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Vice Chairman Hozempa closed this public hearing.

Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the request for a rear yard setback of 11 feet, 35 feet required, 27 feet existing, 24 feet proposed, and a coverage variance of 3.07%, 20% allowed, 18.85% existing, 23.07% proposed, to construct multiple decks. EZO Section 4.10.2H.

Reference is made to a map titled “Prepared for Frank Vono, Enfield, CT 06082, Reino E. Hyyppa & Associates, Civil Engineers & Land Surveyors, Glastonbury, Conn.”, dated 10-12-83 and marked Map No. 161-83-2, and to three air photos marked “#5 (Leon Street)”, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2008-05-02.

Mr. LaRosa stated he understands the deck is existing and the applicant is unhappy with the size of it. He is looking for the hardship for a variance.

Ms. Turner stated the door is the hardship because it is hard to put furniture out there.

Mr. Rinaldi stated it is a small piece of property and the applicant is very limited to going to the side to do any expansion. Being a raised ranch, the main floor is on top of the garage and they are limited as to what they can do. It seems like they are trying to take advantage of what they have. The existing 12’ x 12’ deck is not doing it and they haven’t used it. Going out only 12’ with the new proposal may be running into a safety factor.

Ms. Turner suggested it be a 12’ x 24’ deck and if the applicant goes longer, he has plenty of room. Mr. Rinaldi stated maybe 16’ is what he wants. Ms. Turner stated there is a chain link fence and the shed is right in the middle of the property and it is butting right up to the chain link fence. There is not that much depth. It’s going to protrude so far out to the neighbors, it is almost obnoxious. It is a 12’ square and it is the eight foot slider that is causing the problem. By pushing the deck down and over, there is no door. The deck could be the length of the house. The request is to go deeper but Ms. Turner would like to see the applicant go longer.

Mr. LaRosa can understand the need to go longer with the deck because the door is there. He asked if the hardship is for the upper deck and is there a hardship to become nonconforming with the twenty percent by adding a lower deck and increasing the upper deck so much.

Ms. Turner stated the applicant doesn’t need to go out that far for the stairs to the secondary deck. He can come closer.

Mr. LaRosa asked what is the hardship for going over the 20% coverage. It is a small yard and a variance would be changing the footprint forever. He is looking for a hardship. He is buying into the hardship of the door but the Board is considering two different variances.

Vice Chairman Hozempa stated the lower level deck part is strictly for the coverage. It does have a door and it does lead right out to the grass. There is very little property in the back that is useable because of the slope. What he is looking at is for most of the deck to function as his back yard.

Ms. Turner would not like to go deeper than the 12’. Mr. Rinaldi stated his point is if the applicant puts in another 12’, it still might not be useable. Ms. Turner would like to see the deck 12’ x 24’. Further discussion followed regarding the size the deck should be.

Vice Chairman Hozempa suggested voting on the proposal as it has been presented to the Board. Both decks require two separate variances – a variance issue and a coverage issue.

Ms. Turner stated if you approve one variance, you cannot not approve the other. She asked if there are two separate variances. Mr. Alsbaugh stated there are and he recited the two variances requested. Ms. Turner asked if the Board votes on this and doesn’t go with the 16’ and Mr. Stanfield still wants to put a deck on, will he have to come back again for a new idea or would he be unable to build anything.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated if you don’t come to some sort of agreement at this time for what the Board will accept, then he will have to come back with another application. It would cost him another application fee of $90.

Mr. LaRosa stated the Board is looking at two variances but they have to look at them both together because no matter what, if you turn around and say we will give you the footprint you are asking for but we’re not going to grant the coverage difference, then the footprint doesn’t matter. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if the footprint satisfies the Board and the minimum need of the applicant, then it is a moot point because the coverage is thereby the minimum required under the Board’s solution for a footprint. They are tied together already. If the Board decides on a footprint with certain dimensions, the coverage is automatically a function of that footprint. If the Board decides that it is an acceptable variance to grant, the coverage automatically ties into that because they are the same thing. Technically there are two separate variances but the coverage is actually a function of the footprint.

Mr. LaRosa stated he would like to know the hardship for the proposed footprint. Vice Chairman Hozempa stated the lot is only 7,500 square feet. They can’t build on the other side of the house. They can only go to the back. What he is proposing is going out four feet from the existing deck and then coming out across with the lower door and the upper door together.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the hardship has been related to the topography of the lot which in the past has been grounds for approval. What they are looking for and what the Board is talking about is a functioning level of activity space. That is predicated on the fact that the lot topography hinders that.

Mr. LaRosa stated the Board needs to think about whether the lot is useable without the variance. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board has to decide whether there is an adequate defense on the applicant’s part. They have said they do not use it in its current topography.

Ms. Turner felt the 16’ deep proposed is too long.

Some discussion followed on the size the deck should be.

Vice Chairman Hozempa asked if there is an amendment does it have to be a vote of all four members. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it can be a majority vote. However, if it is a split vote on the variance motion, the variance fails.

Vice Chairman Hozempa addressed the motion on the table. Mr. Rinaldi stated if the Board wanted to amend it, there would be two votes. Further discussion on procedure followed.

Mr. LaRosa stated he sees the hardship of the door. They need a larger deck than the 12’ x 12’ deck. It is the coverage part and it is the lower deck that he is not understanding. Taking away the coverage of the yard forever is something he is not in favor of. The solution to the coverage situation would be possibly not doing the lower deck.

Mr. Rinaldi stated if the setback variance was granted for the 16’ but the Board denied the coverage, then the suggestion is to make a smaller lower deck.

Mr. LaRosa thinks the 16’ is too wide for the property. Ms. Turner noted where the 15’ would end and the chain link fence starts and where the neighbor’s property is are very close together. Mr. LaRosa sketched a possible scenario and stated there are options which he discussed.

Ms. Turner stated this Board is not here to design their deck.

Mr. LaRosa stated the Board is saying the hardship is it can’t be done any other way. What he is trying to show the Board is there’s an option and then you don’t have to take away your percentage coverage. The Board looks at the footprint given to us but whether the Board says yes or no, the Board can show that it is not the only option. Mr. LaRosa felt the Board’s job is to say they are going to grant the variance because there is no other way to do it.

Mr. Rinaldi noted you have to consider with the other ways would there be variances required. Mr. LaRosa stated there would be but would there be two different variances to consider.

Mr. LaRosa stated he is trying not to take away from the yard but give them a deck that works for them.

Vice Chairman Hozempa stated that is not the Board’s charge. Their charge is to vote upon the motion or amend the motion and vote on it.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated when you get into the depth of redesign that is being discussed, it is wasting the Board’s time. If you amend, you have to know exactly what it is you will be amending. The variance is for a specific location. Mr. Rinaldi discussed previous case law where the variance was not for a specific location. The Board is trying to avoid any such situation and that is why variances are so specific. During the discussion that followed, Mr. Alsbaugh pointed out that friendly amendments are usually the result of a consensus.

Some discussion followed on the size of the deck that should be allowed.

Mr. Rinaldi stated one thing to consider is the percentage when you are looking at coverage. He is comfortable with the numbers the Board is looking at.

Mr. LaRosa reiterated the need for a hardship for the variance.

Vice Chairman Hozempa stated it is a very small lot. If the applicant had 10,000 square feet, the whole coverage issue would go away.

Mr. LaRosa questioned the need for a multiple deck.

Mr. Rinaldi stated if there was not an existing deck there, he doesn’t know if he would be so comfortable voting for this. But he sees an existing deck that is not useable.

Mr. LaRosa would like to see the size of the upper deck increased without going into the twenty percent coverage. He questioned the purpose of the lower deck. He is not seeing the hardship to take away the 20% coverage rule.

Further discussion followed regarding the hardship and the characteristics of the lot.

The variance was denied by a 2 – 2 – 0 vote. Vice Chairman Hozempa and John Rinaldi voted in favor; Mary Ann Turner and Maurice LaRosa voted nay.

Mr. LaRosa stated the reason he voted against was he doesn’t see the need for an upper and lower deck configuration. He suggested putting on one deck to stay within the 20% coverage. He doesn’t have a problem with the size but with the coverage. He doesn’t see the need for exceeding the 20%. If the applicant can find a way to keep within the twenty percent, he is all for anyone having a deck.

The reason for denial is the coverage variance was too large. Other options of the deck size to meet the zoning laws are available.

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. LaRosa suggested badges would be helpful for Board members when they visit properties. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he has been requesting such badges for three years. He suggested Board members talk to the Town Manager. Some discussion followed on how helpful such badges would be.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board previously acted on their By-Laws. He presented Board members with an amended section for the By-Law book. The new cover effective April 28, 2008 and the section changed was presented.

Mr. Rinaldi stated he joined the American Planning Association and Board members may want to consider doing so. He is also on a Connecticut Planners’ list service tied in to the chapter. On this list recently, they talked about variances running with the land. Another thing that was discussed recently was attendance. Further discussion followed about procedures to follow should there be an attendance problem.

ADJOURNMENT

Ms. Turner made a motion, seconded by Mr. LaRosa, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________

John Rinaldi, Secretary

Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals

jmr